1st February 2012, 05:34 PM
Just my ten pennies worth, I normally lurk, but this time.. I can't think of many other professions where someone who has read one or two books (usually unreferenced, and by someone who has also read one or two books) would be given equal standing with someone who has spent years in the field and/or in university practising their art. Can we take from your remarks quintaine that you also believe that someone who has put up a garden shed should be held in the same regard as a specialist skyscaper architect, or someone who can replace a battery in their mobile phone should be able to work on a nuclear reactor. Most professional archaeologists have spent years face down in mud, reading tonnes of literature and have formed theories based on it. So having done that, I should place equal relevance to someone who's research could have involved joining dots on a map? Without wishing to sidetrack, I see some similarities with the Creationism vs Evolution argument here. Because people believe it (i.e. Creationism), it should be held in the same regard as a scientific theory (i.e. Evolution). I wouldn't trust anyone who came straight out of university to come up with a decent theory, let alone someone who hasn't spent that time studying the subject. Just to counter any forthcoming argument I should add I'm all for letting non-professional archaeologists involved in archaeology, and will quite happily listen to their interpretations of sites based on the evidence they see around them. They are often right. But I still wouldn't accept their interpretation without having my own knowledge about the subject on which they are discussing and being able to ascertain from this whether they are right or wrong.. This is the key difference between the 'pseudo' archaeologist and the professional as I see it. One (the latter) has enough associated knowledge to determine whether a statement is likely be false or correct, the other has not.